Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
In the response filed on 02 October 2025, the following has occurred: claims 1, 8 and 15 have been amended.
Now claims 1-10 and 13-20 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-10 and 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claims 1, 8 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite system, non-transitory memory and a system for generating a EHR for a user. The limitations of:
Claim 1
initiate an intake session for a user through a communication session […] with the user; [… obtain …] health data entered […]; generate, […], a first set of questions based on the entered health data related to the user; capture, […], a first user response to the first set of questions of a first health screen; generate a score for the health screen associated with the first user response to identify a candidate condition for the user from a plurality of conditions corresponding to the score of the first health screen from a plurality of health screening measures; dynamically generate, […], a second set of questions of a second health screen based on the first user response to the first set of questions and the score for the health screen, wherein the second set of questions of the second health screen correspond to the candidate condition and are generated prior to completion of the first set of questions of the first health screen; capture, […], video and audio data of the user during a second user response to the second set of questions; and generate, […], an electronic health record (EHR) for the user that includes data captured during the intake session; generate, […], a recommended clinical pathway for the user based on the score for the health screen and video and audio data captured during the second set of questions, wherein the clinical pathway includes a sequence of a plurality of tasks with a completion based on due dates and where each of the plurality of tasks are initiated upon completion of a previous task of the sequence; collect, […], audio and video data for a plurality of questions during the recommended clinical pathway; generate, […], […] historical patterns associated with the recommended clinical pathway for other patients with similar health information to the user; generate, […], a treatment trajectory probability curve based on the collected audio and video data […]; and generate, […], an updated clinical pathway based on the treatment trajectory probability curve to be stored at the EHR.
Claim 8
generate a first question from a first health screen for a user based on [… obtained …] medical data of the user and a previous response from the user to a previous question; capture audio and video data of the user reading a script to generate an audio baseline for the user; capture audio and video data of the user during a response to the question and during the previous response to the previous question, wherein the audio and video data is utilized to generate a future question for the user; generate a score for the first health screen associated with the response to the first question to identify a candidate condition for the user from a plurality of conditions corresponding to the score of the first health screen from a plurality of health screening measures; dynamically generate a second question from a second health screen based on the candidate condition for the user when the candidate condition is related to the second health screen and not the first health screen, wherein the second question is generated prior to completion of a plurality of questions from the first health screen; diagnose a condition for the user based on a response to the second question from the second health screen; generate an electronic health record (EHR) for the user that includes a plurality of providers to execute a recommended clinical pathway for the user, wherein the EHR designates a portion of the EHR that is accessible to each of the plurality of providers; generate a recommended clinical pathway for the user based on the diagnosed condition, wherein the clinical pathway includes a sequence of a plurality of tasks with a completion based on due dates and where each of the plurality of tasks are initiated upon completion of a previous task of the sequence; collect audio and video data for a plurality of questions during the recommended clinical pathway; generate a treatment trajectory probability curve based on the collected audio and video data […], wherein the treatment trajectory probability curve is based on […] historical patterns associated with the recommended clinical pathway for other patients with similar health information to the user; and generate an updated clinical pathway based on the treatment trajectory probability curve to be stored at the EHR.
Claim 15
[… provide …], a script for a user; [… obtain …] audio data […] and video data […] during a script response from the user; generate a response baseline for the user based on the audio data and video data from the script response; generate a first medical question from a first health screen to be [… provided …] based on [… obtained …] medical data associated with the user; [… obtain …] audio data […] and video data […] during a first response from the user to the first medical question; generate a score for the first health screen associated with the audio data and video data during the first response to identify a candidate condition for the user from a plurality of conditions corresponding to the score of the first health screen from a plurality of health screening measures; dynamically generate, in real-time, a second medical question from a second health screen to be [… provided …] based on the audio data and video data during the first response from the user, wherein the second medical question of the second health screen corresponds to the candidate condition and is generated prior to completion of the first health screen; generate an electronic health record (EHR) for the user that includes a plurality of providers to execute a recommended clinical pathway for the user based on audio data and video data during the first response and a second response to the second medical question, wherein the EHR designates a portion of the EHR that is accessible to each of the plurality of providers; generate a recommended clinical pathway for the user based on the score for the health screen and video and audio data captured during second set of questions, wherein the clinical pathway includes a sequence of a plurality of tasks with a completion based on due dates and where each of the plurality of tasks are initiated upon completion of a previous task of the sequence; collect audio and video data for a plurality of questions during the recommended clinical pathway; collect a plurality of continuous inputs in the form of audio and video data, health screen data, and biological data; generate a treatment trajectory probability curve based on the collected audio and video data […] utilizing historical patterns associated with the recommended clinical pathway for other patients with similar health information to the user; and generate an updated clinical pathway based on the treatment trajectory probability curve to be stored at the EHR.
, as drafted, is a system, which under broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a method of organizing human activity (i.e., managing personal behavior including following rules or instructions) but for recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting a processor, memory, a computing device with image and audio device, a remote computing device (claim 1), a processor and memory (claim 8), a display device, an imaging device, a microphone and a processor (claim 15), the claimed invention amounts to managing personal behavior or interaction between people, the Examiner notes as stated in 2106.04(a)(2), “certain activity between a person and a computer… may fall within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping”. For example, but for a processor, memory, a computing device with image and audio device, a remote computing device (claim 1), a processor and memory (claim 8), a display device, an imaging device, a microphone and a processor (claim 15), the claim encompasses collecting a user’s responses during a questionnaire and making determinations about the user’s responses to determine which question to provide to the user next and generating a recommendation for the user based on a calculated score from all of the user’s responses. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing personal behavior or interactions between people but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “method of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of a processor, memory, a computing device with image and audio device, a remote computing device (claim 1), a processor and memory (claim 8), a display device, an imaging device, a microphone and a processor (claim 15), which implements the abstract idea. The a processor, memory, a computing device with image and audio device, a remote computing device (claim 1), a processor and memory (claim 8), a display device, an imaging device, a microphone and a processor (claim 15) are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., a general-purpose computers/ computer components implementing generic computer functions; see Applicant’s Specification Figure 5; paragraphs [0061]) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, these additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim recites the additional elements of “receive…”, “generate… a machine learning model” and “display”. The “receive…” steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a general means of receiving/transmitting data) and amounts to the mere transmission and/or receipt of data, which is a form of extra-solution activity. The “generate… a machine learning model” steps are recited at a high-level of generality. (i.e., training an off the shelf machine learning model) and amounts to generally linking the abstract idea to particular technological environment. The “display” steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a general means of displaying data) and amounts to merely linking of the abstract idea to particular technological environment. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of a processor, memory, a computing device with image and audio device, a remote computing device (claim 1), a processor and memory (claim 8), a display device, an imaging device, a microphone and a processor (claim 15), to perform the noted steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic hardware components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic hardware component cannot provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”).
Also, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of “receive…”, “generate… a machine learning model” and “display” were considered extra-solution activity and/or generally linking the abstract idea to particular technological environment. The “receive…” steps have been re-evaluated under the “significantly more” analysis and determined to amount to be well-understood, routine, and conventional elements/functions. As described in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i) “Receiving or transmitting data over a network” is well-understood, routine, and conventional. The “generate… a machine learning model” has been re-evaluated under the "significantly more" analysis and determined to amount to be well- understood, routine, and conventional elements/functions. As described in Mellem (2019/0341152: paragraphs [0011]; Alailima (20190261908): paragraphs [0098]; training a classifier is well-understood routine and conventional. The “display” steps have been re-evaluated under the “significantly more” analysis and determined to amount to be well-understood, routine, and conventional elements/functions. As described in Mellem (2019/0341152): see below but at least paragraph [0145]; Jain (11,763,919): Column 1, lines 20-25; displaying data on a display is well-understood, routine, and conventional. Well-understood, routine, and conventional elements/functions cannot provide “significantly more.” As such the claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 2-7, 9-10, 13-14 and 16-20 are similarly rejected because either further define the abstract idea and/or do not further limit the claim to a practical application or provide as inventive concept such that the claims are subject matter eligible.
Claims 2 and 3 describe generation of baselines to generate a model of features of the users over a period of time, however the claims do not recite any additional elements and therefore cannot provide a practical application and/or significantly more.
Claims 4 and 5 describe comparison of data of different types to make determinations about what to questions to provide a user, however the claims do not recite any additional elements and therefore cannot provide a practical application and/or significantly more.
Claims 6 and 7 further describe determinations about the user and comparisons of data for the user, however the claims do not recite any additional elements and therefore cannot provide a practical application and/or significantly more.
Claims 9 and 10 further describe generation of a plurality of tasks and obtaining indications about completion of the tasks for the plurality of providers, however the claims do not recite any new additional elements that was not already considered above and is incorporated herein and therefore cannot provide a practical application and/or significantly more.
Claims 13 and 14 describe the clinical pathway that is recommended consists of a plurality of providers executing workflows in sequence with due dates, however the claims do not recite any additional elements and therefore cannot provide a practical application and/or significantly more.
Claims 16 and 17 describe generating of a medical condition and severity for a user and using these determinations to select providers, however the claims do not recite any additional elements and therefore cannot provide a practical application and/or significantly more.
Claim 18 describes selection of the recommendation, however the claims do not recite any additional elements and therefore cannot provide a practical application and/or significantly more.
Claim 19 recites the additional element of a user interface, however the user interface is recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to a display of data which was already considered above and is incorporated herein.
Claim 20 recites comparison of user data over time, however the claims do not recite any additional elements and therefore cannot provide a practical application and/or significantly more.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02 October 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicants’ arguments will be addressed herein below in the order in which they appear in the response filed on 02 October 2025.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101
Regarding the rejection of claims 1-10 and 13-20, the Examiner has considered the Applicant’s arguments but does not find them persuasive. Any arguments inadvertently not addressed are unpersuasive for at least the following reasons:
Applicant argues:
Applicant's claims are not directed to merely a principle that is "a fundamental truth," "an original cause," or "a motive." Nor can the claims properly be characterized as merely including a mathematical formula or a fundamental economic practice… As a result, the claims recite more than merely an abstract idea… Without the computer components, it is unreasonable to assume that person could perform these tasks simultaneously (collecting and scoring health screen and video and audio data) at a comparable speed (dynamically generating questions based on a fluctuating input data) and generate a consistent result or product (generating a comprehensive, recommended clinical pathway based on the fluctuating input data). As a result, the claims recite more than merely an abstract idea… Applicant submits that the claims include "some element or combination of elements sufficient to ensure that the claim in practice amounts to 'significantly more' than a patent on an ineligible concept"… The improvement in the technological field is explained in Applicant's specification at Paragraph [0018]… The practical application of treating or preventing a medical condition is explained in Applicant's specification at Paragraph [0016]… Accordingly, Applicant requests reconsideration and withdrawal of the§ 101 rejection of independent claims 1, 8, and 15, as well as those claims that depend therefrom… Claim 15 now clarifies that dynamic generation of questions based on score is done in real-time and claims that the processor collects a plurality of continuous data inputs.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
It is respectfully submitted, under the broadest reasonable interpretation the claims are directed toward organizing the interaction between a human user and various generic computer components to collect and organize data to provide an output to the human user, which as stated in 2106.04(a)(2), “certain activity between a person and a computer… may fall within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping” of abstract ideas. The claims are directed toward the abstract idea grouping of abstract ideas.
The claims do not recite a technical solution to a technical problem recited in Applicant’s specification, in particular argued paragraph [0018] does not recite any technical problems rooted in computer hardware technology, instead the paragraphs are, at best, directed toward human activity problems of “facilitate[ing] continuous data capture from consumers and engagement between providers and primary care physicians”, however human activity solutions of data capture between users to a human activity problem of engagement between users is not a technical problems rooted in computer hardware technology, the claims may provide a human activity solution to a human activity problem, however an improved abstract idea of human activity management is still an abstract idea. Next, with respect to particular treatments the claims do not recite any particular treatments, the claims don’t even administer or provide any treatment, there isn’t even a particular condition, the claims merely output “a clinical pathway” for any generic condition this is not even a generic treatment, yet alone particular treatment, at best, the claims output data for a human user for any generic condition. Finally, with respect to claim 15, the amendments to the claims do not introduce any new additional elements, continuous collection of data is merely organizing data and is not an additional element. Therefore, as no additional elements recite improvements in the functionality of the computer and/or a technical solution to a technical problem recited in Applicant’s specification the argument is unpersuasive.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Andrew E Lee whose telephone number is (571)272-8323. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 9-5:00 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Shahid Merchant can be reached on 571-270-1360. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/A.E.L./Examiner, Art Unit 3684 /Shahid Merchant/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3684